Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Jyoti Sagar, vs The State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, The Director of Health Services

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Sep 22, 2006
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge
Bali, V., K.
Ramachandran, M.
Reference number
(2006) INKLHC 104
Language
English
Subject
Food & nutrition
Keyword
Public health Pesticides
Abstract
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing beverages and drinking water in the brand names of Coca-Cola, Fanta, Sprite, Thumps Up, Limca, Maaza, Kinley, etc. It received orders by the Food (Health) Authority of State of Kerala whereby the State Government prohibited manufacture and sale of Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola in the whole State of Kerala with immediate effect and for an indefinite period. In a study conducted by the Centre of Science and Environment that tested soft drinks brands of Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola across 12 States it had been found that these samples contained different pesticides, which were much above the prescribed standards. The Government of Kerala therefore decided to issue the said ban. The orders were challenged in court. The High Court was of the view that, among others, the impugned orders were harsh, unreasonable and arbitrary. One of the said orders was passed only on the basis of a letter addressed to the Government of Kerala by the Director of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. This letter did not indicate that the pesticide residue found required an order of prohibition. No State Government or Union Territory proceeded to prohibit manufacture or ban the soft drinks but for the State of Kerala and Karnataka. Without even intimating to the petitioners the report of the Centre of Science and Environment or the letter or any intention on the part of Government to prohibit manufacture and sale of soft drinks, the impugned orders had been passed. If the report was in any way considered to be correct and thus the products manufactured by the petitioners were found to be injurious to health, surely, the Government of India and other States would have also passed similar orders as impugned in these writ petitions. There was no justification to continue with the ban on manufacture and sale of products of the petitioners. The stand of the Government further seemed to be unjustified when it was stated that ban order would be made first and hearing to petitioners would be given later. The lack of notice before passing such drastic orders that could entail complete stop on business violated fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court allowed the writ petitions by quashing the orders.
Full text
104.html

References

Cites